Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 19, Issue 9, pp 952–961 | Cite as

Geographic methods for understanding and responding to disparities in mammography use in Toronto, Canada

  • Richard Henry Glazier
  • Maria Isabella Creatore
  • Piotr Gozdyra
  • Flora I. Matheson
  • Leah S. Steele
  • Eleanor Boyle
  • Rahim Moineddin
Populations At Risk

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To use spatial and epidemiologic analyses to understand disparities in mammaography use and to formulate interventions to increase its uptake in low-income, high-recent immigration areas in Toronto, Canada.

DESIGN: We compared mammography rates in four income-immigration census tract groups. Data were obtained from the 1996 Canadian census and 2000 physician billing claims. Risk ratios, linear regression, multilayer maps, and spatial analysis were used to examine utilization by area for women age 45 to 64 years.

SETTING: Residential population of inner city Toronto, Canada, with a 1996 population of 780,000.

PARTICIPANTS: Women age 45 to 64 residing in Toronto’s inner city in the year 2000.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 113,762 women age 45 to 64, 27,435 (24%) had received a mammogram during 2000 and 91,542 (80%) had seen a physician. Only 21% of women had a mammogram in the least advantaged group (low income-high immigration), compared with 27% in the most advantaged group (high income-low immigration) (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.84). Multilayer maps demonstrated a low income-high immigration band running through Toronto’s inner city and low mammography rates within that band. There was substantial geographic clustering of study variables.

CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variation in mammography rates by area, with the lowest rates associated with low income and high immigration. Spatial patterns identified areas with low mammography and low physician visit rates appropriate for outreach and public education interventions. We also identified areas with low mammography and high physician visit rates appropriate for interventions targeted at physicians.

Key words

mammography socioeconomic factors emigration and immigration preventive health services geography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Billings J, Zeitel L, Lukomnik J, Carey TS, Blank AE, Newman L. Impact of socioeconomic status on hospital use in New York City. Health Aff (Millwood). 1993;12:162–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marmot MG, Shipley MJ, Rose G. Inequalities in death-specific explanations of a general pattern? Lancet. 1984;1:1003–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marmot MG, Smith DG, Stansfeld S, et al. Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. Lancet. 1991;337:1387–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lieu TA, Newacheck PW, McManus MA. Race, ethnicity, and access to ambulatory care among US adolescents. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:960–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cowie MR, Fahrenbruch CE, Cobb LA, Hallstrom AP. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: racial differences in outcome in Seattle. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:955–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carr W, Zeitel L, Weiss K. Variations in asthma hospitalizations and deaths in New York City. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:59–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diez Roux AV, Merkin SS, Arnett D, et al. Neighborhood of residence and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:99–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeMers MN. Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000:7–16.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cromley EK. GIS and Public Health. New York: Guilford Press; 2002:35–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Phillips RL, Kinman EL, Schnitzer PG, Lindbloom EJ, Ewigman B. Using geographic information systems to understand health care access. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:971–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Backman AM, Rigby JM, Rice MD, Rivers LM. Locating community health care centres in rural Saskatchewan: the case of the Living Sky Health District. Health Manage Forum. 1995;8:52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fosgate GT, Carpenter TE, Chomel BB, Case JT, DeBess EE, Reilly KF. Time-space clustering of human brucellosis, California, 1973–1992. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:672–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buckeridge DL, Glazier R, Harvey BJ, Escobar M, Amrhein C, Frank J. Effect of motor vehicle emissions on respiratory health in an urban area. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110:293–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bird JA, McPhee SJ, Ha NT, Le B, Davis T, Jenkins CN. Opening pathways to cancer screening for Vietnamese-American women: Lay health workers hold a key. Prev Med. 1998;27:821–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caplan LS, Wells BL, Haynes S. Breast cancer screening among older racial/ethnic minorities and whites: barriers to early detection. J Gerontol. 1992;47:101–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wells BL, Horm JW. Targeting the underserved for breast and cervical cancer screening: the utility of ecological analysis using the National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1484–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Available at: http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastcancer/brcanrr.htm. Accessed January 7, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canadian Taskforce on Preventive Health Care. Available at: http://www.ctfphc.org. Accessed January 7, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katz SJ, Hofer TP. Socieconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage. Breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States. JAMA. 1994;272:530–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katz SJ, Zemencuk JK, Hofer TP. Breast cancer screening in the United States and Canada, 1994: socioeconomic gradients persist. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:799–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mercer SL, Goel V. Factors associated with the use of mammography: the Ontario Health Survey. Cancer Prev Control. 1997;1:144–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hyndman J, Holman CD, Jamrozik K. The effect of spatial definition on the allocation of clients to screening clinics. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:331–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roche LM, Skinner R, Weinstein RB syste. Use of a geographic information m to identify and characterize areas with high proportions of distant stage breast cancer. Public Health Manag Pract. 2002;8:26–32.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wanner P, Raymond L, Bouchardy C. Geographical disparities in self-reported use of mammography and breast self-examination according to the Swiss Health Survey. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:573–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Facts and Figures, 2000—Immigration Overview. Ottawa: Strategic Policy, Planning and Research, Citizenship and Immigration Canada; 2001. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M. Quantitative Geography Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2002:237–40.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dent BD. Cartography: Thematic Map Design. 5th ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown; 1999:138–86.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jones CB. Geographic Information Systems and Computer Cartography. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd; 1997:197–208.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications. New York: Cambridge Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bailey TC, Gatrell AC. Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical Publications; 1995:274–89.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Freeman HP, Muth BJ, Kerner JF. Expanding access to cancer screening and clinical follow-up among the medically underserved. Cancer Pract. 1995;3:19–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yabroff KR, Mandelblatt JS. Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:749–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR. Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase mammography use: a meta-analysis of provider-targeted strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:759–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bickell NA. Race, ethnicity, and disparities in breast cancer: victories and challenges. Womens Health Issues. 2002;12:238–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hubbell FA, Chavez LR, Mishra SI, Magana JR, Valdez R. From ethnography to intervention: developing a breast cancer control program for Latinas. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;18:109–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mazmanian PE, Davis DA. Continuing medical education and the physician as a learner: guide to the evidence. JAMA. 2002;288:1057–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Glazier RH, Creatore MI, Agha M, Steele LS. Socioeconomic mis-classification in Ontario’s health care registry. Can J Public Health. 2003;94:140–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Henry Glazier
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Maria Isabella Creatore
    • 1
  • Piotr Gozdyra
    • 1
  • Flora I. Matheson
    • 1
  • Leah S. Steele
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eleanor Boyle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rahim Moineddin
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Inner City Health Research UnitSt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Family and Community MedicineSt. Michael’s HospitalUSA
  3. 3.Department of Family and Community MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Institute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations